Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Experience and Use in the Veterans Health Administration
Authors: Galina A. Portnoy, Mark R. Relyea, Candice Presseau, Skye A. Orazietti, LeAnn E. Bruce, Cynthia A. Brandt, Steve Martino
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2023)

Importance The practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well. Objective To determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023. Exposure Mental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients. Results A total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, −7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, −7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for IPV.